On 2/17/22 11:18, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
16/02/2022 23:49, Alexander Kozyrev:
On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 4:25 Thomas Monjalon <tho...@monjalon.net> wrote:
12/02/2022 03:19, Alexander Kozyrev:
On Fri, Feb 11, 2022 7:42 Andrew Rybchenko
<andrew.rybche...@oktetlabs.ru>:
On 2/11/22 05:26, Alexander Kozyrev wrote:
+__rte_experimental
+struct rte_flow *
+rte_flow_q_flow_create(uint16_t port_id,
flow_q_flow does not sound like a good nameing, consider:
rte_flow_q_rule_create() is
<subsystem>_<subtype>_<object>_<action>
More like:
<subsystem>_<subtype>_<object>_<action>
<rte>_<flow>_<rule_create_operation>_<queue>
Which is pretty lengthy name as for me.
Naming :)
This one may be improved I think.
What is the problem with replacing "flow" with "rule"?
Is it the right meaning?
I've got a better naming for all the functions. What do you think about this?
Asynchronous rte_flow_async_create and rte_flow_async_destroy functions
as an extension of synchronous rte_flow_create/ rte_flow_destroy API.
The same is true for asynchronous API for indirect actions:
rte_flow_async_action_handle_create;
rte_flow_async_action_handle_destroy;
rte_flow_async_action_handle_update;
And rte_flow_push/rte_flow_pull without "_q_" part to make them clearer.
And yes, I'm still thinking pull is better than poll since we are actually
retrieving
something, not just checking if it has something we can retrieve.
Let me know if we can agree on this scheme? Look pretty close to existing one.
I like the "async" word.
In summary, you propose this change for the functions of this patch:
rte_flow_q_flow_create -> rte_flow_async_create
rte_flow_q_flow_destroy -> rte_flow_async_destroy
rte_flow_q_action_handle_create -> rte_flow_async_action_handle_create
rte_flow_q_action_handle_destroy -> rte_flow_async_action_handle_destroy
rte_flow_q_action_handle_update -> rte_flow_async_action_handle_update
rte_flow_q_push -> rte_flow_push
rte_flow_q_pull -> rte_flow_pull
They are close to the exisiting synchronous function names:
rte_flow_create
rte_flow_destroy
rte_flow_action_handle_create
rte_flow_action_handle_destroy
rte_flow_action_handle_update
I think it is a good naming scheme.
+1
